Posted by alexandra_k on September 25, 2013, at 5:57:17
In reply to Re: the commons, posted by Dr. Bob on September 24, 2013, at 16:43:28
> > some peoples do manage subtractable resources in sustainable ways without the imposition of top-down government.
> Hardin didn't say there had to be top-down government
You are right, he didn't. In fact he acknowledges problems with this attempt at solution.
Ostrom characterizes much of the work since Hardin as thinking that this is the solution to tragedy of the commons situations, though. Whether she is setting up a straw man, or whether this is the case, this seems to be her target.> The only kind of coercion I recommend is mutual coercion, mutually agreed upon by the majority of the people affected.
But you don't want to put certain moderating policies to the vote.
> I'm the "external official" here, yes? Assumed to be able to analyze the situation and change the rules to improve outcomes?
You are if anyone is. I'm not entirely convinced you are an 'external official', though. I said more about this on admin.
> Isn't what? Local governance of smaller to medium scale common-pool resources over a long period of time?
That was my thought, yes. Babble isn't an example of unmoderated. I guess I was thinking that unmoderated was locally governed (social norms) rather than their being official moderation / official rules / sanctions.
> > Then land was granted to convicts who had served their time. There was an incentive at last. After 1792, four years after the first fleet first sailed into Botany Bay, the convict colony of New South Wales was self-supporting.
> Thanks for finding and sharing that story. Incentive was the key?I guess that is the way they tell the story. Being granted / Taking ownership.
poster:alexandra_k
thread:1047868
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/social/20130914/msgs/1051288.html